They cannot possibly be so dumb, folks.
Don’t buy it. In every sense of the word. The statement, and especially, the reporting of the statement. They cannot possibly be so gong.
I’m pulling a very long bow here, but I think the ST may be just trying to make itself more relevant, albeit in a very, very perverse way. So, don’t buy a word they’re saying. They may be just pulling your chains so you’ll talk about them. They may be just making you wonder who that ‘unnamed expert’ is, whether he/she is from the CDC, the MOH or from some department totally unrelated to health and medicine, but so happens to be an epidemiologist.
I mean, they may just want you to do the math and get worked up: 1/3 of new AIDS cases are gay means ‘gay parties may have led to a sharp rise in new AIDS cases’.
They also may just want you to know how they’re tackling the epidemic, and how it is global, because gays from high prevalent societies, they come to party and end up ‘seeding the local community with infection’.
Right now, you may be thinking about what the MOH is doing to work and manage a cure, whether anyone at the Biopolis Hub Thing is working on something, whether there are drug trials, whether they’ll do something once Snowball and Nation moves to Bangkok and the number of AIDS cases rises anyway, and whether they’ll say 1/3 of new AIDS cases are gay means gay parties in Bangkok may have led to a sharp rise in AIDS cases because gay men went to Bangkok, whether we may be living in the Dark Ages.
You may say what you want, but don’t say Straits Times never make you think!
The Straits Times made these people think: